I agree pretty much on everything especially the grass court part.People these days really can't play on real grass, 1st few weeks on Wimbly if you like. I've seen many players sliding on it just like on clay.You won't see Haas do that or any other good grass player. When inertia take place you won't see them sliding but making small 'runny' steps to slow down.

Quote

It is NOT evolution of the sport to allow equipment that changes the nature of the game so much

That is sad but true.The evolution of the sport should be bringing various shotmaking, not athletic endeavours with last man standing tennis. Long matches maybe, but short careers as it seems.

The baseball analogy to tennis can not be make. One it's a team sport with multiple dimensional positions, tennis it's one on one with only one position....the tennis player himself.

If baseball would have allow the bat change to metal, they could have try to compensate by raising the pitching mount, and "dummy" down the ball. The reason baseball hasn't "update" that equipment material (they did update the ball after all and lower the pitching mount) it's because of safety and purist mentality. People can die out there. The energy absorption from the bat to the ball it's dependent on the material of course in addition to how ridiculously light aluminium can be...F=ma (Can you imagine a pitcher's head being blasted by a line drive? Anyways, the analogy to tennis can not be make.

dmast had it right but people keep ignoring his posts. The technology from the 90s to today hasn't change that much after all, the foundation was already there. If tennis acted like baseball, there would be wooden rackets out there and nobody that cares. The biggest change was/is the PLAYER themselves which was facilitate by the technology that was already there. A modern forehand swing uses the ENTIRE body, this people are launching their bodies out there against the ball. In turn, Agassi was "ripping" the ball with a very short and compact swing while taking advantage of the pace of his opponent. (think Davydenko) He was the prototype.

There is also a trade off between head size, control or power...Roger uses a 90 sqin and still hits what's known as the best forehand in the history of the game with ton of spin. Roger's forehand it's possible because of his technique......outside of a wooden racket, his forehand wouldn't change drastically with 90s technology.

Yes, make limited restriction on technology and increase the spectrum of speeds among surfaces. Incorporate a real grass season and indoor season as well. The tennis calendar it's extremely inefficient. But make no mistake about it, you are the minority; tennis is being play at the highest level and regardless of purists tastes and nostalgia.........most people are playing recreational and competitive tennis from all walk of life. That's huge in a sport that's consider extremely elitist.

I might be in minority but when all these players have no more legs due to their last man standing tennis, and when there's no one left to play, they just might turn to that minority before its too late.

I might be in minority but when all these players have no more legs due to their last man standing tennis, and when there's no one left to play, they just might turn to that minority before its too late.

hyperbole too much?

last man standing? You are listening to bab a little too hard. There is only a handful of match-ups that fit that descriptions. Typically, matches are relative quick. If you use Novak-Murray or Novak-Nadal to describe the entire tour then who is the one watching only a selected few?

Right now, there is good tennis being play on clay.....Federer will be at Hamburg. Enjoy it. The quicker HCs are coming too, I bet we will see memorable matches as well.

I might be in minority but when all these players have no more legs due to their last man standing tennis, and when there's no one left to play, they just might turn to that minority before its too late.

hyperbole too much?

last man standing? You are listening to bab a little too hard. There is only a handful of match-ups that fit that descriptions. Typically, matches are relative quick. If you use Novak-Murray or Novak-Nadal to describe the entire tour then who is the one watching only a selected few?

Right now, there is good tennis being play on clay.....Federer will be at Hamburg. Enjoy it. The quicker HCs are coming too, I bet we will see memorable matches as well.

I agree with most of Babbs posts, but don't be delusional he didn't invent 'Last man standing', it was known way before him.

And don't think that I'm not enjoying tennis these days. I'm only criticizing its marketing and selling their again- 'Last man standing tennis'.I surely will enjoy Hamburg and many hc's tours that follow, there's still way too many interest in tennis for me to follow.But at longer distances, I don't see a very bright future considering the direction this sport is heading.

Hopefully more players with uncompromised tennis will come and defy the odds.

This debate, that the current game is of less than satisfactory quality, is one that ex-players, aficionados / tennis enthusiasts have been discussing for a while. I doubt if it is meant to mean that there is no tennis worth watching anymore, but rather, that the game is often played at less than its highest level/quality, and lacks imagination and variety. People are right to reflect upon the state of the sport, given that the lack of variety / limited skill set is now the norm, rather than the exception.

Here is part of an article put up by Mertov, in which Pat Cash discusses the point. Deja vu, methinks :

.Pat Cash:Unfortunately as a purist I see mens tennis going in to a boring stage. There will always be superb athletes and tough competitors of course but the complete and utter lack of foresight from either the ATP or ITF have inadvertently created tennis players with little or no variety in their game. When Federer leaves the tour there will be only a few players on tour with any style of flash about them with any variety. We already have a tennis world dominated by two handed backhands big forehands following up from big serves. Ventures to the net will be to shake hands and thats about it. When the Grand Slams started slowing down the game in the mid 90s by introducing slower courts and balls they had little foresight in making decisions on things such as technology advances or decision on court speeds and surfaces. They changed the game that was initially for the better but as we see it now quickly becoming mundane unfortunately. There must be a committee of ex-top tour players who can discuss the game and what may be the correct decisions as far as technology or court surface speeds and if it is a good decision to change or not change things. String technology must be outlawed if we are ever to see a serve and volley player near the top of the game ever again. You must look at what surfaces favour what styles. Clay and any hard court favours the baseline player no matter what speed the court may be (unless its an extremely fast old indoor court). Only grass favours the volleyer or attacking player but over the past 15 years the grass courts at Wimbledon have become so hard that a good volley will bounce high just like a hard court and this again favours the baseliner. Dont get me wrong I love watching Nadal vs. Federer and some of the other battles we have seen over the last 5 or 6 years as they are just incredible but we must reward good attacking shots and net play as well as baseline battles. It is very clear that the court surfaces balls and strings do not do that at all. ..

This debate, that the current game is of less than satisfactory quality, is one that ex-players, aficionados / tennis enthusiasts have been discussing for a while.I doubt if it is meant to mean that there is no tennis worth watching anymore, but rather, that the game is often played at less than its highest level/quality, and lacks imagination and variety.People are right to reflect upon the state of the sport, given that the lack of variety / limited skill set is now the norm, rather than the exception.

I might be in minority but when all these players have no more legs due to their last man standing tennis, and when there's no one left to play, they just might turn to that minority before its too late.

hyperbole too much?

last man standing? You are listening to bab a little too hard. There is only a handful of match-ups that fit that descriptions. Typically, matches are relative quick. If you use Novak-Murray or Novak-Nadal to describe the entire tour then who is the one watching only a selected few?

Right now, there is good tennis being play on clay.....Federer will be at Hamburg. Enjoy it. The quicker HCs are coming too, I bet we will see memorable matches as well.

I've been careful to single out the culprits. I did that in "Part I" of my "There is a light at the end of the tunnel" thread.

Do you know what tennis will be like without Rafa, Murray, Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils? Tennis without the soap opera during points.

I'm here to formally make amends with today's players for having thrown them all under the bus for the sins of a handful of bad apples.

I will be proven right that this era of "last man standing" tennis will pass sooner than you think but not necessarily for the tweaks I've mentioned. This era will pass when these guys haven't the legs and lungs any longer.

I did a pretty good job here.

I started that thread in disgust after watching the Miami final between Murray and Ferrer. That was literally the GOAT "last man standing" match. Those guys got so tired by the end of the 2nd set, they looked like me by the 3rd set. Fatigue induced panic from both guys. It was a horrible display. Yet, you read a write up about it and the "drama" trumped the quality of tennis, which was abysmal.

The baseball analogy to tennis can not be make. One it's a team sport with multiple dimensional positions, tennis it's one on one with only one position....the tennis player himself.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Quote

If baseball would have allow the bat change to metal, they could have try to compensate by raising the pitching mount, and "dummy" down the ball. The reason baseball hasn't "update" that equipment material (they did update the ball after all and lower the pitching mount) it's because of safety and purist mentality. People can die out there. The energy absorption from the bat to the ball it's dependent on the material of course in addition to how ridiculously light aluminium can be...F=ma (Can you imagine a pitcher's head being blasted by a line drive? Anyways, the analogy to tennis can not be make.

The analogy can be made if you're a purist. The safety issue is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote

dmast had it right but people keep ignoring his posts.

Wrong again. Most of us that have been here awhile truly appreciate DMast's posts as they are usually quaility driven instead of rubbish. Try again.

Quote

The technology from the 90s to today hasn't change that much after all

Oooops, you missed another on. The widespread use of poly strings to offset the power of larger headsizes and provide more spin/control took place in the past 2 decades. What sport have you been watching?

Quote

The biggest change was/is the PLAYER themselves which was facilitate by the technology that was already there. A modern forehand swing uses the ENTIRE body, this people are launching their bodies out there against the ball. In turn, Agassi was "ripping" the ball with a very short and compact swing while taking advantage of the pace of his opponent. (think Davydenko) He was the prototype.

There is also a trade off between head size, control or power...Roger uses a 90 sqin and still hits what's known as the best forehand in the history of the game with ton of spin. Roger's forehand it's possible because of his technique......outside of a wooden racket, his forehand wouldn't change drastically with 90s technology.

Yes, make limited restriction on technology and increase the spectrum of speeds among surfaces. Incorporate a real grass season and indoor season as well. The tennis calendar it's extremely inefficient. But make no mistake about it, you are the minority; tennis is being play at the highest level and regardless of purists tastes and nostalgia.........most people are playing recreational and competitive tennis from all walk of life. That's huge in a sport that's consider extremely elitist.

I have no problem being in the minority or being called a 'purist'.Better to stand alone for what you believe in than to 'run with the herd'.

This debate, that the current game is of less than satisfactory quality, is one that ex-players, aficionados / tennis enthusiasts have been discussing for a while. I doubt if it is meant to mean that there is no tennis worth watching anymore, but rather, that the game is often played at less than its highest level/quality, and lacks imagination and variety. People are right to reflect upon the state of the sport, given that the lack of variety / limited skill set is now the norm, rather than the exception.

Here is part of an article put up by Mertov, in which Pat Cash discusses the point. Deja vu, methinks :

.Pat Cash:Unfortunately as a purist I see mens tennis going in to a boring stage. There will always be superb athletes and tough competitors of course but the complete and utter lack of foresight from either the ATP or ITF have inadvertently created tennis players with little or no variety in their game. When Federer leaves the tour there will be only a few players on tour with any style of flash about them with any variety. We already have a tennis world dominated by two handed backhands big forehands following up from big serves. Ventures to the net will be to shake hands and thats about it. When the Grand Slams started slowing down the game in the mid 90s by introducing slower courts and balls they had little foresight in making decisions on things such as technology advances or decision on court speeds and surfaces. They changed the game that was initially for the better but as we see it now quickly becoming mundane unfortunately. There must be a committee of ex-top tour players who can discuss the game and what may be the correct decisions as far as technology or court surface speeds and if it is a good decision to change or not change things. String technology must be outlawed if we are ever to see a serve and volley player near the top of the game ever again. You must look at what surfaces favour what styles. Clay and any hard court favours the baseline player no matter what speed the court may be (unless its an extremely fast old indoor court). Only grass favours the volleyer or attacking player but over the past 15 years the grass courts at Wimbledon have become so hard that a good volley will bounce high just like a hard court and this again favours the baseliner. Dont get me wrong I love watching Nadal vs. Federer and some of the other battles we have seen over the last 5 or 6 years as they are just incredible but we must reward good attacking shots and net play as well as baseline battles. It is very clear that the court surfaces balls and strings do not do that at all. ..

Pretty hilarious, actually! Article came out the same time (actually, a couple of weeks after) I started railing against 5+ hour matches. It's good to see someone actually writes articles about topics that need to be written. Thanks for that, Mert Even this amateur can identify the culprit as the confluence of court speed, racquet technology, and strings.

I'd love to see Pat approach the boys at ESPN. They're selling today's game so hard -- the next match is potentially the GOAT on (insert surface)!!! -- why would they want to see change?

The only thing that might be a tell is the amount of over single-handed backhands. There's no favorite sidebar discussion topic than the greatest 1HBH on tour today. That might be their subconscious getting the better of them.

The baseball analogy to tennis can not be make. One it's a team sport with multiple dimensional positions, tennis it's one on one with only one position....the tennis player himself.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Quote

If baseball would have allow the bat change to metal, they could have try to compensate by raising the pitching mount, and "dummy" down the ball. The reason baseball hasn't "update" that equipment material (they did update the ball after all and lower the pitching mount) it's because of safety and purist mentality. People can die out there. The energy absorption from the bat to the ball it's dependent on the material of course in addition to how ridiculously light aluminium can be...F=ma (Can you imagine a pitcher's head being blasted by a line drive? Anyways, the analogy to tennis can not be make.

The analogy can be made if you're a purist. The safety issue is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote

dmast had it right but people keep ignoring his posts.

Wrong again. Most of us that have been here awhile truly appreciate DMast's posts as they are usually quaility driven instead of rubbish. Try again.

Quote

The technology from the 90s to today hasn't change that much after all

Oooops, you missed another on. The widespread use of poly strings to offset the power of larger headsizes and provide more spin/control took place in the past 2 decades. What sport have you been watching?

Quote

The biggest change was/is the PLAYER themselves which was facilitate by the technology that was already there. A modern forehand swing uses the ENTIRE body, this people are launching their bodies out there against the ball. In turn, Agassi was "ripping" the ball with a very short and compact swing while taking advantage of the pace of his opponent. (think Davydenko) He was the prototype.

There is also a trade off between head size, control or power...Roger uses a 90 sqin and still hits what's known as the best forehand in the history of the game with ton of spin. Roger's forehand it's possible because of his technique......outside of a wooden racket, his forehand wouldn't change drastically with 90s technology.

Yes, make limited restriction on technology and increase the spectrum of speeds among surfaces. Incorporate a real grass season and indoor season as well. The tennis calendar it's extremely inefficient. But make no mistake about it, you are the minority; tennis is being play at the highest level and regardless of purists tastes and nostalgia.........most people are playing recreational and competitive tennis from all walk of life. That's huge in a sport that's consider extremely elitist.

I have no problem being in the minority or being called a 'purist'.Better to stand alone for what you believe in than to 'run with the herd'.

First of all safety it's the MAIN REASON baseball bats are not aluminium. People will die, simple as that. If purists in baseball had their way, we wouldn't be living in the "live ball era" . Ever heard that term? I will guess no. Baseball has been ALTERED as much as tennis has in relative terms. That's why his analogy to it was wrong and it actually backs my case. People wanted more offense, they got it. Funny, he didn't mention how the ball has change along with the pitcher mount.

What's the deal with my mention of dmast post? I don't care if you consider other people's opinion rubbish or love his posts to no end, the fact is,although acknowledging his post; the gist of it was IGNORED. He did mention the improvement in technology but he was very clear on why a player who grew up with this technology instead of wooden rackets would have a totally different technique that takes advantage of the entire body into the stroke. He even reply back to bab about Agassi not taking full advantage of the technology available to him despite "ripping" strokes thanks to his impeccable timing.

I didn't miss anything, you are so caught up on trying to "get me" that you can't see past the blinders. I will say again, the technology from the 90s up to the day, hasn't change as drastically as the one used in the early 80s to the 90s. You know, the whole wood thing? It's clear from an evolutionary perspective, that it will take several generations for players to fully incorporate the technology and maximize it's potential. That's what you are seeing today, kids that grew up with the rackets that they are using as pro instead of a Sampras or Becker or Edberg that grew up with wood rackets. The muscle memory it's already "burn"...there is no going back. I mean, Sampras used a eastern grip for his forehand.....I guarantee you, if he was born 10 to 15 years later; he would be using at the minimum a semi-western grip, which would have allow him around 35 to 50% more SPIN on his forehand side.........

Interesting you never addressed the other points I made about more people than ever from all walk of life playing the sport. That's a great thing, the masses having an interest on an elitist sport. In addition, I did agree that changes can be made to improve the sport even further and add more variety to it. This is not black and white for me. I do get annoy reading reading "old" people's constant ranting about the old days, and how today's players are limited in skills when nothing can be further from the truth. Offense an DEFENSE has always been part of tennis...........seeing a Djokovic on a open stance full stretch ripping a backhand pass never get's old for me and that's a SKILL. Watching Rafa hook a forehand on the round that bends into the court to kiss the line it's something to behold. Or Delpo ripping 120mph forehands.....you can even hear the people at the stadium gasping for air at the site of it.

Finally, what's the deal with you attitude? So because you are the minority, your position has to be superior? Herd mentality? I don't know, there is still a minority in this country that would love to get rid of the civil right's act among many other stupid things. Be careful, there are other ways in which I can address conversation in this forum. Let's keep it civil ok.

..............My above comment is meant to support Lugburz's comment before it, in which he states that he enjoys tennis , but is concerned about the direction it is taking. It isn't meant to be an earth shattering revelation but an agreement.............